Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability statements
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 06 July 2012 08:24 UTC
Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCB521F85E4 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 01:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYvF-3cRD+7C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 01:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612C821F8630 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 01:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so6537702vbb.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mi5UeWJP5VQaa8VhPMjCVowkR6E73ycgN/R86+FuM/8=; b=PRBFEXI+b/43LEGK6n0NS0yiVNukJpcpclH+YKfBQXj4AanLMp5G5pnfAQbtjU6d2Q Egtd5xIxhiZC8osmuOmpGh0a+7GbYzvknuADkkpZt2bkCgdG6AALVzFvr1BmrOrLYwWN 3KcW/fS4O4OG2Blwsg5iyUD38S6MbKfzGGVgE25D+anjA8lysxGexqFo9lxqweeZnYcz jACgIPGdWDi7eeY1DKo4yuur/ELWUGG2wqSxoPLWc9agDs+8iaGu1cmwCyY33nCwykTV GSRFVOep1gmtJ2O28QgCVpKAf3hDc6B9UVusvXzqaXeJB90BDsyL4H6Zr23Qj3VMsnla +4gg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.149.148 with SMTP id t20mr14086034vcv.12.1341563093795; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.110.130 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 01:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ883aso4+_2C=K=dpjqW+5nqXB0U2x7RP7nP5cqGFYkhWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADnDZ883aso4+_2C=K=dpjqW+5nqXB0U2x7RP7nP5cqGFYkhWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:24:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ88rnMykqFLJxKPr0CbjPAcZ-betL5c1wmA-rR0EoXGbjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability statements
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:24:39 -0000
+1 I will do my best to participate and review, thanking you, Regards AB > Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:43:11 -0400 > From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> > To: roll@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for > applicability statements > Message-ID: <32407.1341510191@marajade.sandelman.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Here is my proposal for a common table of contents for applicability > statements. I will turn this into an ID tomorrow. > > Proposed template table of contents for applicability statements. > > 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 1.1. Requirements Language (RFC2119 reference) > 1.2. References/Overview of requirements documents, both > IETF and industry group. (two pages maximum. This text > should be (very) technical, should be aimed at IETF > *participants*, > not industry group participants, and should explain this > industries' specific issues) > 1.3 Out of scope requirements. > This should list other documents (if any) which deal with > situations where things are not in scope for this document. > > (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered > urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering > networks, > and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should > be three or four documents, so this section should list the > limits of what this document covers) > > 2. Deployment Scenario > 2.1. Network Topologies > I would like to see a single scenario described, with possibly > multiple topologies that a single utility would employ. > > 2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 > Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is > initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, > etc.) > are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about > authentication and authorization in those protocols. > > for instance: > 2.2.1. General > 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm > 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication > paradigm > 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm > 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm > 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast > 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm > > > 2.3 Layer 2 applicability. > Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and > if there are options, they should be listed generally here, and > specifically in section 4.2. > > 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements > > This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used > in this network topology. If trees that are multiple > layers deep are expected, then this should be described so that the > fan > out is understood. > Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be explained, perhaps > with images references from other publications. > > This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a > simulation > tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to construct > an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to validate an > implementation. > > 4. RPL Profile > This section should list the various features of RPL plus other layers > of the LLN, and how they will be used. > > 4.1. RPL Features > 4.1.1. RPL Instances > 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode > 4.1.3. DAO Policy > 4.1.4. Path Metrics > 4.1.5. Objective Function > 4.1.6. DODAG Repair > 4.1.7. Multicast > 4.1.8. Security > 4.1.9. P2P communications > > 4.2. Layer-two features > 4.2.1. Need layer-2 expert here. > 4.2.2. Security functions provided by layer-2. > 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. > 4.2.4. MLE and other things > > 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges > 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters > 4.3.2. Other Parameters > > 5. Manageability Considerations > 6. Security Considerations > 6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment. > (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors, > initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, > in a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps > like > > http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/CullenJennings.pdf) > > 6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment > (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes > on the dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. > How are nodes removed if they are compromised) > > 7. Other Related Protocols > 8. IANA Considerations > 9. Acknowledgements > 10. References > 10.1. Informative References > 10.2. Normative References > > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 307 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/attachments/20120705/81bc77ee/attachment.sig> > > ------------------------------ >
- [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Michael Richardson